Sunday, August 10, 2008

Double Cross

“His article starts by distinguishing between ‘Protestant Catholics’ and ‘Roman Catholics’. This is odd for two reasons, first because he uses titles that each side generally does not use for itself. Protestants generally do not refer to themselves as Catholics, let alone ‘Protestant Catholics’. And Catholics do not generally refer to themselves as ‘Roman Catholics’. We are Catholics, and if we are in the Latin Rite Particular Church within the Catholic Church, we are properly ‘Latin Rite Catholics’, not Roman Catholics.”

I assume Godfrey draws this distinction because he wishes to deny to the Church of Rome its monopolistic claim to be the “universal” church.

“Second, Dr. Godfrey's terminology suggests that both Protestants and Catholics are members of a larger genus, i.e. Catholic.”

That might be a valid criticism. Depends on what Godfrey meant. However, this semantic quibble is of no consequence. I doubt most people think of “Catholic” as a synonym for “universal.” For them, it’s just a brand name, like Bayer, or Kleenex or Xerox. So I myself don’t have any objection to calling papists Catholics, or the church of Rome the Catholic church.

“Dr. Godfrey says here that the Protestant conception of sola scriptura is that ‘Scripture alone is our authority’. If we took this statement at face value, it would imply that no Protestant pastor or session or presbytery or general assembly has any authority over any Protestants. But of course in practice such Protestant offices and bodies do exercise some sort of authority over those persons who have placed themselves under them. So either Dr. Godfrey is not being careful here, or he is endorsing the individualism of private judgment and solo scriptura.”

Here I think Cross is being pedantic. Godfrey is speaking, not in absolute terms, but in the context of the historic conflict with Rome.

“Rather, the Catholic Church teaches that the oral tradition and teaching authority of the Church already existed, from the day of Pentecost on, in the teaching and preaching of the Apostles. The New Testament Scriptures were eventually added to the oral tradition and to the teaching authority of the Church.”

Actually, that formulation assumes a two-source theory which modern Catholicism denies.

No, the Scriptures weren’t “added to oral tradition,” as if these two modes of transmission continued on parallel tracks. Oral tradition dried up. The written word supplanted the spoken word. The spoken word was committed to writing.

What is more, it’s misleading to treat orality as prior to textuality. 1C Jews didn’t belong to an illiterate or preliterate culture. Speaking and writing could coexist side-by-side. For example, Paul was both a preacher and a writer. Cross is peddling the position of the liberal German form critics.

It also overlooks the fact that orality frequently presupposes textuality. Orality is a mode of textual transmission. You can transmit a text orally. Commit the text to memory, then quote it from memory. Bible writers do this all the time.

“But the Church has never existed without her teaching authority, and without the oral tradition in the form of the preaching of the Apostles.”

And the church has never existed without Scripture. The Apostles were preaching from the OT scriptures. From Messianic prophecy.

It’s also misleading to speak of the church’s “teaching authority” in the abstract, as if there’s some sort of free-floating entity called “teaching authority.” Rather, that authority was grounded in the Apostolate. It’s not something you can treat as detachable and transferable.

“It is not difficult to show that since Scripture is the Word of God, and obviously nothing can have more authority than the Word of God, that therefore the Scripture must be the "ultimate" [i.e. highest] intrinsic authority in the Church. But no one disagrees with that. That is not what the Protestant-Catholic disagreement concerning sola scriptura is about. The Catholic Church teaches that her leadership is the servant of the Word of God. (CCC 86).”

This is one of those dishonest tactics that Catholic epologists like Cross resort to. They pretend that Protestants just don’t understand the nature of the claim.

But we’re perfectly aware of what Rome says on paper. In practice, however, Rome pays lipservice to the final or ultimate authority of Scripture. At a functional level, Rome subordinates the authority of Scripture to the authority of the Magisterium.

“So the point of disagreement (between Protestants and the Catholic Church) regarding sola scriptura is not primarily about which authority in the Church has the most or highest intrinsic authority, but is rather about who has final or highest interpretive and teaching authority, and on what ground or basis these persons have such interpretive and teaching authority.”

That’s a purely formal distinction which doesn’t obtain in a real world situation. Interpretive or teaching authority is the functional equivalent of the most or highest intrinsic authority because you can’t appeal the Magisterial teaching or interpretation to the higher court of Scripture. Rather, the Magisterium presumes to speak for Scripture. Scripture means whatever the Magisterium says it means. Therefore, Scripture has no authority over the Magisterium.

“(The disagreement between Protestants and the Catholic Church regarding whether the Word of God was also passed down as oral Tradition depends for its resolution on who has interpretive and teaching authority to give the authoritative ecclesial judgment on this question.)”

The equation of sacred tradition with oral tradition is obsolete. Catholicism now operates with a concept of living tradition. Oral tradition is static. It can’t develop.

If Jesus really said things to the Apostles which were never committed to writing, but were, instead, passed along by word-of-mouth, then that’s a fixed deposit.

“Bound up in the [Protestant] concept of sola scriptura is much more than the mere notion that Scripture is the highest intrinsic authority in the Church. The Protestant conception of sola scriptura includes the assumption of perspicuity, namely, that the Scripture is sufficiently clear and plain that whatever is necessary to be believed for salvation can be known by everyone who reads it.”

That’s a simplistic caricature of the actual position. For example, “Perspicuity does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e. the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily,” Turretin, Institutes, 1:144.

“This perspicuity assumption is taught nowhere in Scripture or Tradition; it is a novel assumption imported by Protestants from outside Scripture and Tradition to the process of interpreting Scripture. We do not find it in the first 1500 years of the Church, just as if the Apostles did not teach any such doctrine to the Church.”

In public debates with the Jews, as well as writing to Christians, the Apostles appeal directly to the OT Scriptures. They assume their audience can follow an exegetical argument. They assume their audience can decide for themselves which side has the better of the argument.

Whether or not “Tradition” teaches perspicuity begs the question in favor of Bryan’s Catholic ecclesiology.

“Nor would the Apostles likely have done so, given that the printing press was not invented until the fifteenth century.”

Two problems with that objection:

i) That objection would cut, with equal force, against Magisterial documents. Textuality isn’t limited to Scripture. It includes the church fathers, papal bulls, canon law, &c.

ii) The absence of the printing press didn’t prevent Jesus and the Apostles from constantly referring their audience to the OT scriptures—just as it didn’t prevent OT prophets from constantly referring their audience to the provisions of the Mosaic covenant.

“So the Catholic response to the sixteenth century Protestant claim regarding perspicuity is ‘Who told you that perspicuity is true?’”

Jesus, the Apostles, and prophets.

“And what ecclesial authority did he have?"

That begs the question in favor of Bryan’s Catholic ecclesiology.

“I want to focus not on the origin but on the implications of the perspicuity assumption. The perspicuity assumption implies that we do not need any interpretive authority, if by 'need' we are referring to only what is necessary to know and believe for salvation.”

Two more problems:

i) As the quote from Turretin illustrates, this is a straw man argument.

ii) Bryan also rigs the issue by casting the issue in terms of interpretive “authority.” But why should we accept that framework?

For example, Bryan is attacking perspicuity in the context of a post on his blog. Do his readers require interpretive authority to correctly interpret his objections to sola Scriptura? Has the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith issued an authoritative interpretation of Bryan’s post? Can we find that on the Vatican’s official website? I don’t think so.

So Bryan’s objection to perspicuity is self-refuting. For his objection to perspicuity presupposes perspicuity. He applies perspicuity to his own statements. He conveniently exempts his own statements from his general argument. And he is banking on the competence of his readers to correctly interpret his statements.

If we were to apply his objections to perspicuity to his own statements, his exercise would be futile.

You don’t need an authoritative interpretation to have a correct interpretation. If you got it right, then authority is irrelevant.

“And whatever else might be good to know, we can decide for ourselves whether we want to learn it.”

That attitude isn’t limited to Protestant circles. It’s just as prevalent in Catholic circles. You can resist any authority, whether Biblical authority or ecclesial authority. Simply shifting the locus of authority changes nothing.

“So right here, in an implicit assumption hidden behind the more obvious and explicit definition of sola scriptura, is the basis for the individualism that makes each Protestant interpreter his own final interpretive authority.”

Once again, he frames the issue in terms of authority: individual authority over against ecclesial authority. Why should we accept that framework?

Consider the dustup between the blind man and the Pharisees in Jn 9. Which side had more authority? The Pharisees were the authority-figures in that exchange. So what?

He was right and they were wrong. Authority is irrelevant. He wasn’t making himself the final authority. It was never a question of who was in authority. It was simply a question of who was right and who was wrong.

In fact, pulling rank is a typical tactic on the part of those who are losing the argument. When the argument doesn’t go their way, they invoke their authority as a last-ditch appeal.

“But what if salvation is more complicated than that? What if there are gradations of happiness in heaven, and our measure of happiness in the life to come has something to do with how we live in this life? What if we are called to be saints in this life, to be perfect, and yet we only do the very minimum, squandering a life-time of opportunities for acts of heroic virtue? In that case, the minimalistic and nominalistic approach to Christianity that seeks to do whatever just gets people inside the pearly gates is a misleading theology that potentially detracts from our eternal happiness.”

Noting is more minimalistic than Catholic piety. Fornicate Monday through Saturday. Go to confession. Arrive late at Mass. Skip the hymns. Skip the prayers. Skip the homily. Trust in a wafer for your salvation. Light a candle to the BVM when you get in trouble. Pay a priest to recite a requiem Mass for you’re after dead.

In Catholicism, the Mass is a mousetrap. Trap Jesus in a piece of bread for long enough to swallow him. That way, you have Jesus inside of you. That way, God can’t damn you without damning Jesus.

“If as perspicacity implies we do not need an interpretive authority, then there is no point to a Magisterium having authority in perpetual succession from the Apostles.”

So true.

“Perspicuity makes the Church's Magisterium both superfluous, obsolete and presumptive, for surely Jesus would not have established an enduring interpretive authority if we did not need such a thing.”

So true.

“Therefore, given the perspicuity of Scripture, it follows logically that those persons claiming to have interpretive authority from the Apostles are at best mistaken and at worst presumptive, having at some point arrogated to themselves an authority that they do not have.”

So true.

“Perspicuity in this way is incompatible with the Catholic Church's long-standing teaching regarding the role and authority of the bishops in succession from the Apostles.

So true.

Bryan is on a roll here. This is the best part of his post.

“The Protestant notion of perspicuity entails and grounds the ecclesial consumerism that in practice leads to the vast proliferation of sects, for since there is no given interpretive authority, then by default we are left to accumulate to ourselves teachers who teach according to what we believe. (2 Tim 4:3).”

Of course, Bryan himself is an ecclesial consumer. He’s a product of the American religious supermarket. He himself has strolled down various aisles of spirituality, buying one product, and then another. He decided for himself from whom to learn what’s necessary for salvation. He ended up accumulating to himself teachers who teach according to what he believes. The only difference is that his teachers are Catholic teachers. He has hired Catholic masseurs to rub his itching ears.

“And both the explosion of competing Protestant sects and their inability to reconcile with each other over the past five hundred years undermines the notion that we have no need [if not in the sense of personal salvation, at least in the sense of corporate unity] for a living interpretive authority.”

Of course, this sort of invidious comparison pivots on a fallacy of arbitrary selection. He takes his own church as the frame of reference, then wags his finger at all the other Christian “sects.”

Needless to say, that begs the question. Why should Rome supply the standard of comparison?

Bryan is arguing from his position. But you’re not entitled to argue from your position before you argue for your position.

Bryan is like a marble that deplores the vast proliferation of other marbles. There are too many marbles in the world. A veritible explosion of competing marbles.

But Bryan is just another marble. What makes his marble so special? Even if there are too many marbles in the world, that doesn’t make his marble the one true marble. As one marble to another, he’s in no position to be so disapproving. If we have too many marbles, then maybe his marble should be melted down to lessen the proliferation of competing marbles.

Let’s also remember that sola Scriptura is not the only reason for the proliferation of “sects.” The Inquisition impeded the explosive growth of denominations. Does Bryan think we should go back to the good old days of Torquemada?

“Protestant history testifies that we need a perpetual interpretive authority in order to maintain ecclesial unity.”

That begs the question of whether we need to maintain ecclesial unity. And how we define it. There was a lot of ecclesial disunity in 2nd Temple Judaism.

“So in this way Protestant history testifies against perspicuity, and in favor of what the Catholic Church has always taught about her bishops and the nature of their authority as passed on through sacramental succession from the Apostles.”

It only testifies against perspicuity if you buy into Bryan’s gratuitous assumptions. And even if you buy into his gratuitous assumptions, Catholicism is not the only alternative. Why not become Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox?

Moreover, Bryan hasn’t established sacramental apostolic succession. His skipping over many crucial steps in the argument.

“But already he has begged the question, possibly without realizing it. Consider what is implicit in his claim that ‘it can be shown that [my] position is the clear position of Scripture’. He is implicitly assuming here that no heretic could show [to that heretic's own satisfaction, and to those likeminded to him] that his own heresy is ‘the clear position of Scripture’.”

How does that follow from what Godfrey said? And how is that an implication of sola Scriptura?

Bryan has smuggled a subjective condition into Godfrey’s statement. The question at issue is not whether a heretic can prove something “to his own satisfaction.”

If Bryan is going to relativize every interpretation merely on the grounds that someone else can *claim* to show otherwise, then Bryan’s scepticism applies with equal force to his own interpretations.

He is also committing a level-confusion. The point at issue is not how we apply the rule of faith to a particular question (e.g. Christology), but the identity of the rule of faith itself. Whether we correctly apply the multiplication tables, and whether the multiplication tables are the correct standard to apply, are to very different issues.

“For if heretics can in principle do this, then the fact that someone can show [to his own satisfaction and that of those likeminded to him] that his own position is ‘the clear position of Scripture’ does not show whether that position is heretical or orthodox, in which case we would need the living Church authority to adjudicate the question for us.”

If, ex hypothesi, the arguments and counterarguments are equally matched, then how would the church adjudicate the question? That’s not a principled resolution to the dispute. That’s invoking the church has a makeweight. The church has no new evidence to shift the balance in one direction or another. Unless the church can argue for the superiority of its interpretation, this is a purely arbitrary show of force. Take it on our say-so even though we can’t give you a good reason to believe us.

BTW, it’s interesting how often, in their desperation, Catholic epologists take the side of Arians and other heretics. They concede that Arian exegesis was as plausible as orthodox exegesis.

How they think that playing the Arian card when debating Protestants is a good strategy has always struck me as self-defeating. All this tells me is that Catholics are no better than Arians.

It’s like a guy who’s a serial killer at heart, but he contents himself with watching splatter flicks instead because he’s afraid of getting caught. If the only thing that restrains Catholics from becoming Arians is faith in Mother Church, then that’s not much of a recommendation.

“Therefore, Dr. Godfrey's methodology, if it is to be consistent with Protestantism, must assume at least implicitly that in principle no heretic can show [to that heretic's his own satisfaction and to that of those likeminded to him] that his own heresy is ‘the clear position of Scripture’.”

This is such a dumb statement. It’s like saying that if I can’t prove to a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job, then his explanation is just as good as mine. Or if I can’t prove to a ufologist that little green men didn’t crash land at Roswell, then his explanation is as good as mine. Whether you can persuade someone else is irrelevant to what is true. And if the evidence lies on one side of the ledger, then the church can’t drag it over to the other side of the ledger by ecclesiastical fiat. Authority is no substitute for truth.

“To approach Scripture as though each individual has the authority to determine definitively for him or herself what it says, is not to approach the Scripture in a neutral manner.”

Another straw man argument. Sola Scriptura isn’t predicated on the *authority* of the individual—much less the ability of an individual to determine *definitively* what Scripture means.

Because Catholics don’t expect to find answers in Scripture, they don’t bother to see what Scripture had to say on the subject. What interpretive process does the Bible hold believers to?

Take OT judges. Judges had to interpret the Mosaic law in order to apply the Mosaic law to a particular case. And, if you want to bring authority into the discussion, OT judges even had the judicial authority to do that.

Yet their judicial rulings weren’t infallible. They didn’t *definitively* interpret OT case law. It was a fallible judicial process. Innocent men could be convicted. Guilty men could be acquitted.

“It is to approach Scripture as though the first 1500 years of Christianity were deeply misguided, and Protestantism is true.”

So true.

“In order to talk about the issue of sola scriptura, therefore, we have to step back from debating the interpretation of the Scriptures themselves. That is the point Tertullian made here, and St. Vincent of Lerins made here.”

Citing Tertullian and Vincent begs the question in favor of Bryan’s ecclesiology.

“We have to examine how exactly the Church has operated from the beginning regarding the resolution of disputes over the interpretation of Scripture.”

“From the beginning” would have reference to the NT church. It’s hard to come up with any examples of disputes over the interpretation of Scripture in the NT church. There were various disputes in the NT church, but were there any disputes over the interpretation of Scripture?

Moreover, “the church” is a vague descriptor. Who was disputing with whom? What does Bryan have in mind? Apostles? False teachers?

“Only if the practice of the early Church...”

Notice that he’s shifting grounds. The “early church” is not synonymous with “the church from the beginning.” Even if the early church is inclusive of the NT church, that designation also postdates the NT church.

“Only if the practice of the early Church was to treat Scripture as self-interpreting, and as though there was no need for adjudication of interpretive disagreements by the Apostles and bishops would we be justified in approaching Scripture as though we ourselves have the authority to determine definitively for ourselves what it says.”

Now he begs the question by smuggling bishops into the process, as if episcopal authority is interchangeable with apostolic authority. That may represent his own viewpoint, but it’s no way to argue with a Protestant.

“If, however, the Church did not treat Scripture as self-interpreting, but relied upon the decisions of the bishops to determine what is the orthodox and authorized teaching of the Church and the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, then for us to approach Scripture as though the bishops are not the interpretive authorities of Scripture is performative, if not propositional, heresy.”

Notice the bait-and-switch tactic. Apostles have now dropped out of the process entirely.

“There is no neutral interpretive starting point here. Either we come to Scripture recognizing and submitting to the ecclesial authority of the bishops, or we come to Scripture rejecting [knowingly or unknowingly] the ecclesial authority of the bishops.”

True. At the same time, that’s a false dichotomy since there’s no reason we should cast the issue in prelatial terms to begin with.

What about recognizing and submitting to the final authority of Scripture while also consulting the history of interpretation—including modern commentaries?

“So the impossibility of neutrality here concerns those who know that the Apostles appointed bishops and gave them perpetual authority in the Church.”

Bryan is trading on equivocations.

“If we wish to know how to approach the Scriptures, we must determine what those bishops taught about their own authority in relation to the deposit of faith and the interpretation of Scripture. Otherwise, we will beg the question and talk past each other in the Protestant-Catholic ecumenical dialogue.”

To the contrary, it begs the question to insist that we must first determine what bishops said about their own authority. And, by definition, a bishop believes in episcopal authority. He’s not a “neutral” witness to his own office.

Moreover, even if we accept this prelatial framework for the sake of argument, Bryan is skipping over a number of preliminary steps.

You have to identify the true bishops. Before you can do that, you have to identify the true church. You must also verify the valid ordination of a bishop. If his ordination was invalid, he’s not a true bishop. And there are many impediments to valid ordination. Even if he’s a true bishop, you must also sift the true statements from the false statements since, even on Catholic ecclesiology, the average prelate is not infallible.

Bryan has a very lopsided view of ecumenical dialogue. He assumes everything he needs to prove, then imposes his tendentious assumptions on his Protestant conversation-partner. For someone who’s pursuing a doctorate in philosophy, he has a remarkably blinkered outlook.

26 comments:

Apostolic succession is defined in different ways by different sources, and the same was true in early patristic Christianity. Not all definitions of apostolic succession are inconsistent with Protestantism. See, for example, here. If Clement of Rome refers to the fact that the apostles appointed church leaders and the fact that those leaders would need to be replaced by others with the passing of time, such concepts, if they're to be defined as apostolic succession, constitute a form of apostolic succession that no knowledgeable Protestant would reject. Or when the Didache tells Christians to appoint church leaders who meet particular doctrinal and moral standards, and tells them to not follow church leaders if they depart from those standards, what knowledgeable Protestant would object to such a principle? When Justin Martyr writes at length about Christianity without saying anything about something like a Roman Catholic notion of apostolic succession, why are we supposed to assume that Justin agreed with whatever Catholics want to selectively cite from later sources on the subject? Or when Irenaeus refers to a form of apostolic succession that's different from the Roman Catholic concept, why should we conclude that Irenaeus represents what we should believe as far as he agrees with Roman Catholicism, but doesn't represent what we should believe as far as he departs from Roman Catholicism?

The earliest Christians seem to have held a concept of apostolic succession like Gregory Nazianzen later describes:

"Thus, and for these reasons, by the vote of the whole people, not in the evil fashion which has since prevailed, nor by means of bloodshed and oppression, but in an apostolic and spiritual manner, he is led up to the throne of Saint Mark, to succeed him in piety, no less than in office; in the latter indeed at a great distance from him, in the former, which is the genuine right of succession, following him closely. For unity in doctrine deserves unity in office; and a rival teacher sets up a rival throne; the one is a successor in reality, the other but in name. For it is not the intruder, but he whose rights are intruded upon, who is the successor, not the lawbreaker, but the lawfully appointed, not the man of contrary opinions, but the man of the same faith; if this is not what we mean by successor, he succeeds in the same sense as disease to health, darkness to light, storm to calm, and frenzy to sound sense." (Oration 21:8)

Read Galatians, the pastoral epistles, or the Didache, for example. Such a high view of holding church leaders accountable to moral and doctrinal standards has to be part of any true notion of apostolic succession, and Roman Catholic bishops, including the bishops of Rome, have often been unqualified by such standards. To submit to somebody like Pope Benedict XVI would be a sin.

Regarding the appropriateness of referring to people as Roman Catholics, below are some examples of the Roman Catholic Church referring to itself as Roman, even using the term Roman Catholic. The first quote claims that every Christian church has the Roman church as its only foundation. If Rome is your only foundation, why would you object to being called "Roman"?

"Indeed, 'from the incarnate Word's descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior's promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 834)

"I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches." (First Vatican Council, 2:12)

Notice that, in the following quote, the universal church is referred to as "Roman":

"They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy Roman and universal church and the seamless robe of Christ', and with serpent-like bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself." (Council of Florence, session 9)

"Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation." (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 27)

Noting is more minimalistic than Catholic piety. Fornicate Monday through Saturday. Go to confession. Arrive late at Mass. Skip the hymns. Skip the prayers. Skip the homily. Trust in a wafer for your salvation. Light a candle to the BVM when you get in trouble. Pay a priest to recite a requiem Mass for you’re after dead.

In Catholicism, the Mass is a mousetrap. Trap Jesus in a piece of bread for long enough to swallow him. That way, you have Jesus inside of you. That way, God can’t damn you without damning Jesus.

I stopped reading here. Oh, the irony of accusing Bryan Cross of a straw man.

Steve: "Noting is more minimalistic than Catholic piety. Fornicate Monday through Saturday. Go to confession. Arrive late at Mass. Skip the hymns. Skip the prayers. Skip the homily. Trust in a wafer for your salvation. Light a candle to the BVM when you get in trouble. Pay a priest to recite a requiem Mass for you’re after dead."

Oso: "Hatefull. Mean spirited. Straw man."

S&S: I had Catholic roommates in college, and that IS how they talked. They bragged about how good it was to be Catholic in that they could do anything that they wanted, and then, all that they would have to do is go to Mass and confession. Disgusting indeed.

That doesn't prove anything, though. Just because they are Catholic doesn't mean that they won't be damned. The Catholic Church teaches that even Popes can be damned, so the original post is, indeed, a strawman rather than any sort of actual engagement with Catholic thought.

I stopped reading here. Oh, the irony of accusing Bryan Cross of a straw man.

Hatefull. Mean spirited. Straw man.

Saying so and demonstrating it aren't convertible. Indeed notice what that comment was directed toward:

But what if salvation is more complicated than that? What if there are gradations of happiness in heaven, and our measure of happiness in the life to come has something to do with how we live in this life? What if we are called to be saints in this life, to be perfect, and yet we only do the very minimum, squandering a life-time of opportunities for acts of heroic virtue? In that case, the minimalistic and nominalistic approach to Christianity that seeks to do whatever just gets people inside the pearly gates is a misleading theology that potentially detracts from our eternal happiness.”

And that's precisely where Catholic piety leads.

1. You are regenerated ex opere operate via baptism.2. You divide your faith between the merit of Christ, your own congruent merit, and the merit of others.3. You can't ever have certainty of your salvation.4. Your infusion theology of grace, as if grace was a substance in a wafer or water, leads you to do penance here and there, get absolution through a few novena, Hail Mary's, or whatever, and then you get your weekly or daily infusion of grace in the wafer.

That's a recipe for minimalistic piety if ever there was.

That doesn't prove anything, though. Just because they are Catholic doesn't mean that they won't be damned. No, they'll do time in Purgatory and then they'll go to heaven.

The Catholic Church teaches that even Popes can be damned,

We know that. What's the good of an infallible Magisterium if (a) the address changes frequently (see other posts below) and (b) they can't even give you assurance you're saved?

so the original post is, indeed, a strawman rather than any sort of actual engagement with Catholic thought.

What is it about Roman Catholics and Orthodox that they're too thick to understand a simple point? The point is not that there are sinners within a given denomination - that's a given. The point is that Roman Catholic theology is perverse and debased enough to provide loopholes that encourage this kind of behaviour. By contrast, the biblical attitude is not that you can simply toss away the penalty for your sins by saying a few Hail Marys or taking communion, but that one must always be in the process of sanctifying one's behaviour and constantly trying to examine oneself and become more Christlike, because we are accountable directly to God. The nominal person will not be motivated by this, but the regenerate will.

They concede that Arian exegesis was as plausible as orthodox exegesis.

Well, isn't it? :-\ Anyway, glad that You're at least a "normal" Protestant, and not a Jehova's Witness ... :-)

We were/are just being frank here: first with ourselves and secondly with others (such as Yourself): we're doomed without Tradition. I don't recall us ever pretending to possess a higher knowledge or superior intelligence than anyone else: all that we ever claimed was being faithful to and steadfast in the paths laid down by our Fathers, fore-fathers, and predecessors in the faith once-and-for-all delivered.

Of course that's not the Catholic teaching! Time and time again, you miss the point. It's also not the goal of the government that tax loopholes can be used so that the rich can squirm through them while paying very little compared to their income. Yet the very existence of those loopholes pretty much guarantees that kind of behaviour.

Likewise, in the Roman Catholic Church, on paper they may "tut tut" scornfully if someone misses mass or fornicates, or what have you but the fact that all these loopholes and getaways exist in Catholic theology guarantee that people will adopt the attitude that they can sin now and go to confession later. It's just one more abhorrent perversion of biblical theology out of many for the Vatican.

As for Your continous, senseless remarks concerning Baptism and Eucharist, they've already been answered 2,000 yrs ago by John the Baptist and St. Paul the Apostle. Matthew 3:7; Luke 3:7; 1 Corinthians 11:27-32. -- or do You place the Gospels and Pauline Epistles among the Apocrypha also?

SR,"the biblical attitude is not that you can simply toss away the penalty for your sins by saying a few Hail Marys or taking communion, but that one must always be in the process of sanctifying one's behaviour and *constantly trying to examine oneself and become more Christlike*, because we are accountable directly to God."

Actually, there is some debate amongst Lutherans as to the value of the third use of the Law and whether one should "constantly [try] to examine oneself and become more Christlike". But maybe they're just as unbiblical as that crazy RCC that teaches unrepentant sinners can say a few novenas and all is well - as tbloggers are fond of saying, "care to document that"?

You say, oh yeah the RCC doesn't really teach that, then say "the fact that all these loopholes and getaways exist in Catholic theology guarantee that people will adopt the attitude that they can sin now and go to confession later" - so which is it?

Thus far the Catholic commenters are doing an impressive job of demonstrating their apologetic impotence. I'm still waiting for an actual counterargument to what I wrote. Thus far, none has been forthcoming.

the dude said, "You say, oh yeah the RCC doesn't really teach that, then say "the fact that all these loopholes and getaways exist in Catholic theology guarantee that people will adopt the attitude that they can sin now and go to confession later" - so which is it?"

There's a difference between what Catholicism condemns in writing and what its sacramentology ***creates*** in practice.

SS,SR said "the fact that all these loopholes and getaways exist in *Catholic theology*"

Does catholic theology contradict itself - presumably not as you refer to "in writing" - but then I guess you're saying the sacramentology practiced by the RCC contradicts its theology? Or just that it is commonly misunderstood by the lay person? Does the common erroneous view of OSAS amongst evangelicals that is subject to the same type of criticism Steve and SR leveled say anything about Protestant theology? I would say no, but seems like I must be wrong.

"Does the common erroneous view of OSAS amongst evangelicals that is subject to the same type of criticism Steve and SR leveled say anything about Protestant theology?"

Yes, it is. Classical Dispensationalism's view of sanctification leads to that very thing. Both this view as well as that of Rome should be condemned and called for what they are: heretical and destructive of true piety.

While we're on the subject, I'll take the occasion to repost something I posted over in Stellman's combox:

“Isn't it strange that Bryan Cross and others who are completely charitible all the time get this kind of garbage thrown at them from other Christians?”

Isn’t it strange that Oso can be so very selective and one-sided in his definition of “charity.” Is this a charitable characterization of Protestant theology:

“What if we are called to be saints in this life, to be perfect, and yet we only do the very minimum, squandering a life-time of opportunities for acts of heroic virtue? In that case, the minimalistic and nominalistic approach to Christianity that seeks to do whatever just gets people inside the pearly gates.”

Is it charitable of Cross to characterize Protestants as ecclesial Deists, ecclesial Docetists, and schismatics?

Oso’s agreement with Cross blinds him to the uncharitable ways in which Cross describes the Protestant position.

Historically, the Catholic church has not been conspicuous for its charitable behavior toward theological opponents. Was the Inquisition charitable?

It’s only after the Catholic church lost its temporal power that it suddenly discovered the virtues of charitable behavior toward its opponents.

“I'm not the expert on RC'ism that John is, but from what little I do know about their theology, I cannot say that I recognize it in the caricature above.__If that had been posted here I would ask the commenter to rein in his rhetoric a bit. But since it was a link posted to an article by someone else and then reproduced here, all I can say is that it seems like an unfair representation, not unlike how we Calvinists are portayed by Arminians.”

Hi, Pastor Stellman.

On what, precisely, to do you base that evaluation?

Let’s take a couple of concrete examples. Ted Kennedy, at least in his prime, was a notorious womanizer. Now, to my understanding, that’s a mortal sin in Catholic theology.

Was Kennedy ever discipline by his church? Was he ever excommunicated? Or denied communion? No.

Let’s take another example. William Brennan was an architect of Roe v. Wade. Yet he was also a weekly communicant.

Was Brennan every disciplined by his church for promoting a policy antithetical to the moral theology of his denomination? No.

I mention Brennan and Kennedy because these are two famous Roman Catholics. Their Diocesan bishops were well aware of their sinful conduct. And it made not a dime’s worth of difference. No disciplinary action was ever brought against them.

So, yes, the message this sends is that if you just go through the motions, go to confession, go to Mass, you can do as you please.

STEVE: "I'm still waiting for an actual counterargument to what I wrote."

My goodness, you think this is worthy of a response?

I'll just point out a few areas of total sillyness:

"And the church has never existed without Scripture. The Apostles were preaching from the OT scriptures. From Messianic prophecy."

Which is irrelevant because the Apostolic teaching, even for a protestant, is not limited to what is found in the OT.

"Scripture means whatever the Magisterium says it means. Therefore, Scripture has no authority over the Magisterium. "

And in your world, scripture means whatever STEVE says it means. But we're not told how this is different.

"Interpretive or teaching authority is the functional equivalent of the most or highest intrinsic authority because you can’t appeal the Magisterial teaching or interpretation to the higher court of Scripture."

That's like saying that because Paul interprets Genesis, therefore Paul is a higher authority than Genesis, and Paul's teaching and interpretation was not subject to the higher court of the Law and the Prophets. Of course, that is silliness.

"“Perspicuity does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e. the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness)"

Which makes this whole discussion irrelevant, since we cannot empart internal light or prayer via the internet.

"Trap Jesus in a piece of bread for long enough to swallow him. That way, you have Jesus inside of you. That way, God can’t damn you without damning Jesus. "

3. You have to interpret the Magisterium too. Infallibility in the teaching source doesn't jump from the page to the reader. The reader has to be infallible too. So, Magisterial authority/infallibility doesn't get you where you want to go.

4. Our argument is consistently that the two rules of faith are on epistemic par, not that ours is superior to yours. It's you that argue the superiority of your rule of faith.

That's like saying that because Paul interprets Genesis, therefore Paul is a higher authority than Genesis, and Paul's teaching and interpretation was not subject to the higher court of the Law and the Prophets. Of course, that is silliness.

The Catholic claim, JJ, is that the Magisterium gets to define what Scripture is (infallibly at that) and then gets the right to interpret it. How can serve that which you yourself define? This invites a vicious regress.

Which makes this whole discussion irrelevant, since we cannot empart internal light or prayer via the internet.

Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter. So, if your objection is true, it cuts both ways.

So... the Magisterium has never quoted a commentary? Quite a bold claim that needs to be proven. How is Steve different to the Magisterium again?

"2. What parts of Scripture has the Magisterium actually interpreted?"

All of it presumably, since they read the bible like you and me. What parts of scripture has STEVE interpreted?

"3. You have to interpret the Magisterium too. "

How is this a response that makes STEVE different to the Magisterium?

"4. Our argument is consistently that the two rules of faith are on epistemic par"

That's like saying that every possible belief system must be on an epistemological par because they all have to be filtered through one's own ears and brain. If you want to believe that, hello absolute relativism.

"The Catholic claim, JJ, is that the Magisterium gets to define what Scripture is (infallibly at that) and then gets the right to interpret it. How can serve that which you yourself define? This invites a vicious regress."

How is this different to STEVE again? He defines what scripture is for STEVE and he defines what it means to STEVE. So I guess there is no hope that STEVE could be subject to scripture, right?

"Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter. So, if your objection is true, it cuts both ways."

I wasn't the one who claimed that internal light is needed to interpret scripture. If its internal light that we need, shut up now and let those with internal light bask in it. But if its commentary we need, then an infallible one is on an epistemologically higher plane than protestant fallible ones. Here I guess is where you will equivocate on whether we need commentaries or not

Actually they are disputing Scriptura. The original quote was relative to the Church never existing w/o her teaching authority and w/o the ORAL tradition in the form of the preaching of the Apostles.

Steve replied that the Church has never existed without Scripture.

Indeed, they had the OT. The Apostles and others wrote the New. So, at no time has the Church existed without the Scriptures.

So, let's test the origninal statement to which Steve replied, JJ. Please document these oral traditions for us. Are you aware of any that are different from those we find in Scripture? How can I know they are Apostolic?

So... the Magisterium has never quoted a commentary? Quite a bold claim that needs to be proven. How is Steve different to the Magisterium again?

I never said that they have never quoted a commentary, so need to prove nothing.

Where can I find the list of infallibly exegeted Scriptures that the Magisterium has interpreted?

It's different from Steve because Steve doesn't claim infallibility.

How is this a response that makes STEVE different to the Magisterium?

I've already answered that.

That's like saying that every possible belief system must be on an epistemological par because they all have to be filtered through one's own ears and brain.

1. Actually, there is a substantial amount of agreement between Protestants when they exegete the Bible.

2. Actually, I'm paraphrasing a Roman Catholic:

"If you do not claim to be infallibly certain that your interpretation of the whole Bible is correct, then of what value is it to have an infallible Bible without an infallible interpreter? In either case, your statement crumbles (this is a statement to a Protestant who said that the Bible is the only infallible interpreter he needs). The plain fact is that an infallible Bible without an infallible living interpreter is futile. Infallibility never gets from the printed page to the one place where it is needed: the mind of the reader. The myriad divisions within Protestantism offer ample evidence of the proof of this statement." See John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, rev. ed. (Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1974), p. 117.

Apparently, the Good Father didn't bother to consider that if true this argument cuts both ways. This would, of course, apply equally as well to the Roman Catholic if true. Even if the interpreter is "infallible" (the Church and its teachers, who convey its teaching) it's infallibility would never get from the printed page or the audible words to where it is needed, the mind of the interpreter.

Every interpreter is a reader/hearer too, and vice versa. So, the problem isn't related to the necessity of an infallible interpreter (teaching office), it's the necessity of an infallible hearer/reader (person in the pew, reader, etc.).

The Roman Catholic solution only puts the question back one step or more. So, it's on epistemic par with the Protestant rule of faith.

And his final conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Of course, this is a non-sequitur. The divisions within the receivers of teaching say nothing about the fallibility or infallibility of the teaching itself or the text itself. Indeed, Catholicism is divided too, so his conclusion is self-excepting.

3. Do you require an infallibilist contraint on knowledge? Where's the supporting argument?

4. You've yet to tell us how your rule of faith is superior. How do you know that what the Magisterium says is correct?

How is this different to STEVE again?

How is this different than the Magisterium? The Magisterium (if you can find it), defines what scripture is and defines what it means to themselves and all others. So I guess there is no hope that the Magisterium could be subject to scripture, right?

How did the Jews ever muddle along with an infallible Magisterium to define and interpret Scripture for them? How did the Subapostolic and Medieval churches muddle along without Trent's declaration.

Steve places himself under the authority of the Bible by studying and exegeting it and obeying it. The Magisterium is in the ugly position of having to claim it infallibly defines that which it - and it only - interprets and telling Catholics they are bound to whatever they say is true.

I wasn't the one who claimed that internal light is needed to interpret scripture. Actually that statement goes back at least as far as Augustine in the Church Fathers. In the Bible we find Paul discussing the fact that the regenerate/elect do in fact understand and respond to the Gospel, for the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to it. To others it is the stench of death.

Roman Catholics low view of Scripture and ignorance of it is scarcely matched by their low view of providence.

If its internal light that we need, shut up now and let those with internal light bask in it.

Actually, you're now quoting part of Turretin without the rest of what he says.

But if its commentary we need, then an infallible one is on an epistemologically higher plane than protestant fallible ones.

Where can I find infallible commentaries that the Magisterium has produced?

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J.: When one hears today the call for a return to a patristic interpretation of Scripture, there is often latent in it a recollection of Church documents that spoke at times of the ‘unanimous consent of the Fathers’ as the guide for biblical interpretation.But just what this would entail is far from clear. For, as already mentioned, there were Church Fathers who did use a form of the historical-critical method, suited to their own day, and advocated a literal interpretation of Scripture, not the allegorical. But not all did so. Yet there was no uniform or monolithic patristic interpretation, either in the Greek Church of the East, Alexandrian or Antiochene, or in the Latin Church of the West. No one can ever tell us where such a “unanimous consent of the fathers” is to be found, and Pius XII finally thought it pertinent to call attention to the fact that there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, “nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous.” Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Scripture, The Soul of Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994), p. 70.

"Indeed, they had the OT. The Apostles and others wrote the New. So, at no time has the Church existed without the Scriptures."

And we've yet to hear why we should care. I'm sure everyone is quite aware of the existence of the OT. But we're also aware that the oral teaching exceeded the OT. Thus the apostles were not practitioners of sola scriptura.

"Please document these oral traditions for us."

Much of the oral tradition is the traditional understanding of scripture. Things like what the eucharist means, who should be baptised, how the church should be run and so forth. I'm sure you know full well the Catholic position on these things.

"Are you aware of any that are different from those we find in Scripture?"

Different, no. Beyond the boundaries of scripture, perhaps.

"How can I know they are Apostolic?"

The same way you can know Genesis through to Revelation is prophetic.

"I never said that they have never quoted a commentary, so need to prove nothing."

So who gives a rip that protestants quote commentaries?

"Where can I find the list of infallibly exegeted Scriptures that the Magisterium has interpreted?"

Who claimed there is a list or we need a list?

"It's different from Steve because Steve doesn't claim infallibility."

Functionally it is identical, because Steve never goes against Steve's interpretation.

Presumably you would see Christianity on a higher epistemological plane than agnosticism, because the Christian accepts revelation about things the agnostic might suspect, but isn't sure of. If so, then a magisterium which clarifies what the bible is unclear about, would put Catholics on a higher plane than protestants. If you disagree, then you must put yourself on the same level as agnostics.

"1. Actually, there is a substantial amount of agreement between Protestants when they exegete the Bible."

And there's a substantial agreement I would say between the Church fathers in their exegesis. Funny how you always want to play that down and play up protestant agreement. Then again, to prove such agreement you have to make a completely arbitrary delineation between who you are willing to grant the moniker "protestant" and who you will deny it to.

"Apparently, the Good Father didn't bother to consider that if true this argument cuts both ways."

John made a further distinction - that of a _living_ interpreter. There is a fundamental advantage of having a living teacher compared to teaching yourself. That's why we still have schools, and not just books. That why the eunuch said "how can I understand unless someone guides me?"

"Do you require an infallibilist contraint on knowledge? Where's the supporting argument? "

What have I said which would lead you to ask such a question? Would you be happy if an agnostic asked you this question because of your committment to biblical inerrency?

"4. You've yet to tell us how your rule of faith is superior. How do you know that what the Magisterium says is correct?"

Clearly, a rule of faith with an infallible interpreter to resolve disputes is better than a rule of faith with nobody to resolve. That's why we have courts, and appellate courts, and not just everybody or every local court making up their own mind.

"So I guess there is no hope that the Magisterium could be subject to scripture, right?"

If you want to concede that STEVE cannot be subject to scripture, then we can proceed.

"How did the Jews ever muddle along with an infallible Magisterium to define and interpret Scripture for them? How did the Subapostolic and Medieval churches muddle along without Trent's declaration."

The Jewish priesthood (call them a magisterium if you like) must have been carrying out their basic functions correctly, since God put them in charge with the responsibility over the temple to carry out their priestly duties for the people. If you want to say that the Jews as individuals were at liberty to abandon the Levites and set up a brand new priesthood if they weren't happy with the preaching of the priests, then you would be at odds with biblical history.

"In the Bible we find Paul discussing the fact that the regenerate/elect do in fact understand and respond to the Gospel, for the Holy Spirit opens their eyes to it. To others it is the stench of death."

And the way you understand this concept and apply it here makes this blog and discussion obsolete.

"Roman Catholics low view of Scripture and ignorance of it is scarcely matched by their low view of providence."

We believe God guides his church throughout history and yet we have a low view of providence? Ha!

"Where can I find infallible commentaries that the Magisterium has produced?"

I think the issue is not whether I can point to a particular commentary which is infallible, but rather that the Church is infallible and the documents it produces, as a whole, considering its various writers, can point you to the Church's infallible understanding. On the other hand a commentary of a schismatic or heretic is simply one opinion versus another, at least as likely to point one away from the truth as towards it.